Pesachim 79a (עט.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara now returns to Rav’s statement at the beginning of the discussion. He said: If the meat became impure while the fat remains, as is explained in our Mishna, one may not sprinkle the blood; nevertheless, if he did sprinkle it, it effected acceptance. And we challenged this: After all, we require that there be food available for consumption?!

Alternatively, if you wish, say:

And we answer this objection:

Rav—

who holds that if one sprinkled the blood, it effected acceptance even though the meat became impure and is unfit for consumption—

stated his ruling in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that consumption of the Paschal offering does not invalidate the offering.

This

is

how

it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says:

With regard to all the offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became impure while the fat remains, or the fat became impure while the meat remains, he sprinkles the blood.

But

a nazirite—

who, upon completing his nazirite term, brings, among his other offerings, one ram as a peace offering, cooks it in the Temple courtyard, and after shaving his head places his hair beneath the pot in which the peace offering is cooking; and the priest takes the cooked foreleg of the ram and waves it before the Lord.

And

so

does one who brings a Paschal offering,

whose principal purpose is consumption; their laws are different:

a.

If the fat became impure while the meat remains,

he

sprinkles the blood,

as with other offerings. But

if the meat became impure and

even if

the fat remains, he may not sprinkle the blood; but if he did sprinkle it, it effected acceptance.

And the reason that even a nazirite’s peace offerings differ from other offerings is that the nazirite’s peace offerings “begin with consumption, as he must place his hair beneath the pot in which the peace offering is cooking, and furthermore, he must perform the waving of the cooked foreleg.” Evidently, the meat must be pure at the time of the sprinkling, so that it is fit for the mitzva associated with it

”;

nevertheless, if he sprinkled the blood, it effected acceptance, since these matters do not invalidate the offering [Rashi; Tosafot dispute all of this and do not read the word “nazirite” here].

b.

If

the owners became impure through contact with a corpse,

he may

not sprinkle the blood, unlike other offerings, for which an impure person sends his offerings.

And the reason with regard to the Paschal offering is that although consumption of the Paschal offering does not invalidate it according to Rabbi Yehoshua, “we require a person who is fit to eat, and the Merciful One deferred one impure through contact with a corpse to the Second Pesaḥ” [Rashi].

And the reason with regard to the nazirite is that “it is also written with regard to a nazirite: ‘If a person dies suddenly beside him,’ etc., as this nullifies his nazirite term” [Rashi].

We have thus learned that, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, consumption of the Paschal offering does not invalidate it. Therefore, he holds that even though the meat became impure and is unfit for consumption, if one sprinkled the blood, it effected acceptance, as Rav said.

We learned in the Mishna: And

with regard to consecrated offerings, this is not so; rather, even though the meat became impure while the fat remains, one sprinkles the blood:

And we explain:

The Mishna is in accordance with whose opinion? It is Rabbi Yehoshua.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah, if an olive-bulk of meat remains

for human consumption,

or an olive-bulk of fat

for burning on the altar,

he

sprinkles the blood.

But if

half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat remain, he may not sprinkle the blood, because human consumption and consumption on the altar do not combine.

And with regard to a burnt offering,

which is entirely burned on the altar,

even if half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat remain,

he

sprinkles the blood, because it is entirely burned,

and there is only consumption on the altar here.

And with regard to a meal offering, even though it remains entirely intact, he may not sprinkle

the blood, and the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

And we ask: What place does

a meal offering have

in connection with the sprinkling of blood?

What does sprinkling of blood have to do with meal offerings?!

Rav Pappa

explained:

The “meal offering” mentioned in the beraita does not refer to a meal offering brought independently, but to

a meal offering accompanying libations,

which is brought with the offering. The beraita teaches that even though the meal offering accompanying the sacrifice remains intact, that alone is insufficient to permit sprinkling the blood upon the altar if the meat and sacrificial portions of the offering became impure.

The novelty of the beraita is:

It might enter your mind to say: Since it comes by virtue of the sacrifice,

which obligates one to bring a meal offering of libations with it,

then

it is considered like the body of the sacrifice,

and the meal offering should stand in place of the meat, as though meat had remained [Rashi, Menahot 26a].

The beraita therefore teaches us otherwise.

The Gemara now explains the central ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that if the fat, which is intended for consumption on the altar, remains, then even though the meat, which is intended for human consumption, does not remain, he sprinkles the blood:

And we ask: Rabbi Yehoshua’s fundamental ruling that we require the meat to remain in the case of a peace offering is derived above, on page 77b, from the verse: “And he shall pour out the blood of your offerings, and you shall eat the meat.” If so, we should infer that whenever the meat does not remain fit for consumption, one may not sprinkle the blood. But that fat alone suffices for sprinkling the blood—

from where

do we derive this

?!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

in explanation,

in the name of Rabbi Yishmael; and some attributed it

to the statement that Rabbi Yoḥanan said

in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya:

As the verse says: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

and he shall burn the fat for a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.” We have learned from this that the priest sprinkles the blood if only

fat

remains,

even though there is no meat

fit for human consumption.

We have found that

fat

alone suffices. But with regard to the other sacrificial portions, namely,

the diaphragm of the liver and the two kidneys, from where

do we know that they suffice for sprinkling the blood upon them, and that they too are sufficient, as the Gemara proceeds to explain?

And we explain:

Where do we say that we sprinkle?

Where is it written that, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, even the other sacrificial portions suffice for sprinkling the blood upon them, such that we ask from where he derives this? After all, his words mention only fat.

And we explain:

And we answer: This is demonstrated by the earlier beraita,

as it teaches: And with regard to a meal offering—

of libations brought with the sacrifice, which is burned upon the altar like the sacrificial portions of the offering— even though it remains entirely intact, he may not sprinkle; from here we learn that only

the meal offering

of libations, which is not the body of the sacrifice,

does not

constitute what remains.

But the diaphragm of the liver and the two kidneys—

which are the body of the sacrifice—

are certainly considered

what remains, so that one may sprinkle the blood upon them.

The Gemara returns to its question: But

from where

is this derived

?!

Rabbi Yoḥanan himself—

and not in the name of his teachers, as above—

said

in explanation:

For

the verse says: “And he shall burn the fat

for a pleasing fragrance”; you sprinkle the blood upon that which is burned for a pleasing fragrance, as stated above. We have thus learned:

Everything that you place upon the altar for a pleasing fragrance

is considered what remains, so that one may sprinkle the blood upon it.

And we explain:

And it was necessary for the verse

to write

“fat,”

which constitutes what remains,

and it was necessary for the verse

also to write

the phrase

“for a pleasing fragrance,” in order to teach that the other sacrificial portions also constitute what remains.

For had the Merciful One written

“fat”

alone,

I would have said: Fat, yes, it indeed constitutes what remains, but

the diaphragm of the liver and the two kidneys do not constitute what remains.

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote

“for a pleasing fragrance” in order to include them as well.

And had the Merciful One written

“for a pleasing fragrance”

alone,

I would have said: Everything that is placed upon the altar for a pleasing fragrance constitutes what remains,

even a meal offering

of libations that is brought with the sacrifice and placed upon the altar for a pleasing fragrance. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote

“fat”

to teach you that what remains must be similar to fat, which is part of the body of the sacrifice; but a meal offering of libations is not included.

Mishna:

a. It was explained in the introduction to the Mishna on page 76b that although the Paschal offering is an offering whose time is fixed, and by law it should override impurity, the law of the Paschal offering is different: It does not override impurity; rather, its owners are deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

It was further explained there that although other offerings may be brought in a state of impurity on the part of their owners, the Paschal offering differs from other offerings in this regard: It may not be brought in the impurity of its owners; rather, they are deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

b. Indeed, all this applies only to the impurity of an individual.

But if the majority of the public must override impurity, impurity is overridden.

For the Torah says: “If any person becomes impure through contact with the dead, he shall offer the Pesaḥ to the Lord in the second month,” and the Sages received the following tradition: An individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, but the public is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

c. Although with regard to other communal offerings, impurity is overridden only with regard to offering them in a state of impurity, and not with regard to eating the meat of the offering while the person or the meat is impure, with regard to the Paschal offering even eating it in a state of impurity is permitted. This is because the principal purpose of the Paschal offering is consumption [provided that the owners were already impure at the time of the offering, and the offering was therefore performed in impurity], as was explained above.

c. The parameters of overriding impurity for a communal Paschal offering are the same as the parameters of overriding impurity for other offerings. Just as there is a dispute with regard to other offerings whether impurity is “deferred” or “permitted,” so too there is a dispute with regard to the Paschal offering.

a.

If the congregation, or the majority of it, became impure

before Pesaḥ.

b.

Or if the priests—

who are required to perform the offering on behalf of the entire congregation or the majority of it—

were impure, and

even if

the congregation was pure,

they shall perform

the Paschal offering

in impurity.

For we derive: An individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, but the public is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

b.

Or if the priests—

c. If the majority of the congregation was impure and the minority was pure, even those who are pure need not take care to preserve their state of purity; rather, they may perform the offering in impurity.

[For when the Mishna says: “If the congregation, or the majority of it, became impure, they shall perform it in impurity,” this also refers to those who are pure, as is explained in the Gemara.]

The reason is that we say: “A communal offering is not divided,” so that some would perform it in impurity and others in purity [Meiri; see the view of those who disagree in the note ].

the community was pure,

they shall offer

d. If all Israel, or the majority of them, were pure, but were compelled to perform their Paschal offering in impurity because all or the majority of the priests were impure, then even the minority of Israelites who are impure through contact with the dead offer and eat the Paschal offering in impurity, and are not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ,

The reason is explained in the beraita cited shortly in the Gemara: “A communal offering is not divided.” Since even those who are pure then perform their offerings in impurity [because of the impurity of the priests], the minority who are impure are also permitted to perform their offering in the impurity of their bodies.

e. But if only

For we derive: An individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, but the public is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

a minority of the congregation became impure—

then

those who are pure perform the

Paschal offering first, and those who are impure perform the Paschal offering second, on the fourteenth of Iyyar.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: If Israel were impure, while the priests and the service vessels were pure. Or if Israel were pure, while the priests and the service vessels were impure.

And even if

Israel and the priests were pure, and only

the service vessels were impure [the Gemara explains this case shortly].

They shall perform [even those impure through bodily impurity] their Paschal offering

in impurity, because

a communal offering is not divided.

Rav Ḥisda said:

second Paschal offering

on

They taught

in the beraita that since the service vessels became impure and the offering of the majority of Israel was performed in impurity, even those who are impure are permitted to perform the Paschal offering and eat it in impurity:

Only

in a case

where the knife became impure [or another service vessel]

through contact with one impure through contact with a corpse,

for the knife came into contact with one impure through contact with a corpse, which is an originating source of impurity [for only when the knife became impure through contact with one impure through contact with a corpse does the priest holding it also become impure, and this is what permits the owners to eat the Paschal offering in impurity, as the Gemara proceeds to explain].

For although we generally maintain that if a vessel comes into contact with an originating source of impurity, it becomes impure with an impurity that is less severe than that of the source of impurity, and is only a first degree of impurity [which does not render a person impure], metal vessels [Rashi; and some say wooden vessels as well] that became impure through contact with a corpse, or through contact with one who became impure through contact with a corpse, are different: The vessels become impure with the same degree of impurity as the source of impurity.

And this is because

the Merciful One said: “When there is a slain person in a sword”

to teach you that

a sword [or another metal vessel] that became impure through contact with a corpse

is like the corpse itself,

like the corpse itself.

The same law applies when metal vessels become impure through contact with one impure through contact with a corpse: They become impure with the impurity of the source of impurity.

And

therefore, the service vessel

renders impure

the person,

the priest holding it; consequently, even the impure owners are permitted to eat it in impurity. And this is because

initially [at the outset,]

at the time the offering was performed,

when the Paschal offering

was performed, it was

with bodily impurity

of the priest,

which

was

performed under liability for karet [the Paschal offering was performed in the impurity of the priests, whose entering the Temple courtyard would entail karet absent the rule overriding impurity]. Since this is so, it is permitted to eat it in the impurity of the owners, which likewise entails karet.

And this is because

But if the knife became impure through impurity imparted by a creeping creature,

[a creeping creature touched it,] which is an originating source of impurity, the vessel that touched the creeping creature is only a first degree of impurity and does not render a person impure. It follows

that

the knife

renders only the meat impure, but

it does not render the person impure [only the Paschal meat became impure through the knife, but the priest holding it did not become impure]. In such a case, the law is:

The

owners who are pure may perform it, but

those who are impure may not perform it.

the sacred vessel transmits impurity

to

And the reason is that

it is preferable that the Paschal offering

be eaten

in

the impurity of the meat, which is generally

a prohibition,

rather than

eating meat in the impurity of the body

of the owners who eat it,

which entails karet.

And we explain Rav Ḥisda’s statement:

Evidently, Rav Ḥisda holds that impurity

is “deferred”—

with difficulty— in the case of the public,

and is not entirely permitted. Therefore, it is not permitted to eat the Paschal offering in the impurity of the owners unless, without their impurity, the offering would itself have been performed in an impurity that entails karet.

For if you should say that impurity is “permitted” for the public, we should say: Since it is impossible to perform the offerings of the majority of the public except in impurity, even the impurity of the meat, impurity has already been permitted with regard to this Paschal offering, and it should not matter through which type of impurity the individual performs it.

the knife only

transmits impurity to the meat,

but

does not transmit impurity to the person [

only the Paschal meat becomes impure from the knife, while the priest holding it does not become impure]. In such a case, the law is:

The

owners who are pure may offer it,

but

those who are impure may not offer it.

Although the Gemara uses the expression “may offer it,” implying that the issue concerns the actual performance of the Paschal offering, even though the Gemara’s reasoning here concerns eating, which is punishable by excision,

The reason is that

it is preferable

that

the Paschal offering be eaten

with the

impurity of the meat,

which is

only a prohibition,

in general,

rather than have the meat be eaten with bodily impurity

of the owners who eat it,

which is punishable by excision.

And we explain Rav Ḥisda’s statement:

Apparently, Rav Ḥisda holds that impurity

is “deferred”

in the case of

with difficulty,

the public,

with difficulty, and is not fully permitted. Therefore, eating the Paschal offering while the owners are impure is permitted only when, without their impurity, the offering would still have been performed in a state of impurity punishable by excision.

For if you should conclude that impurity is “permitted” in the case of the public, we should say: Since it is impossible to offer the offerings of the majority of the public except in a state of impurity, even impurity of the meat, impurity has already been permitted with regard to this Paschal offering, and it should not matter through which type of impurity the individual performs it.

And it is necessarily the case that it is merely deferred; therefore, an individual was not permitted to perform it in a state of ritual impurity, unless the majority of the public needed to defer impurity with regard to that same matter by which you seek to permit it for an individual.

And so Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Impurity is merely deferred in the case of the public.

And Rava said:

Indeed, impurity is merely deferred in the case of the public [Sha'agat Aryeh, section 38, and Sefat Emet], but nevertheless

even those who are impure may perform it [even owners who are impure may eat the Paschal offering] when the serving vessels became impure through contact with a creeping creature, since the flesh became impure and the prohibition against eating impure flesh was deferred.

even owners who are impure may eat the Passover offering, when the sacrificial utensils became impure through contact with a creeping animal, since the meat became impure and the prohibition against eating impure meat was set aside.

What is the reason?

As it is written: “And the flesh that touches any impure person shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.”

And juxtaposed to it is

“And the flesh, every

pure person shall eat flesh.”

This indicates that the eating of impure sacrificial flesh is equated with the eating of sacrificial flesh while the eater is impure.

And we derive:

Wherever the verse

“And the flesh that touches any impure person shall not be eaten”

also

applies, “And the flesh, every pure person shall eat flesh”

also applies, but not to one who is impure.

And

wherever

“And the flesh that touches any impure person shall not be eaten”

does not apply—for example, in this Paschal offering, in which eating impure flesh was permitted—

“And the flesh, every pure person shall eat flesh”

does not apply;

eating flesh while the eater is impure was likewise permitted.

It was stated:

It was explained in the Mishna: If the people or the majority of them became impure, all Israel perform the offering in impurity, including those who are pure. We have thus learned that if the majority of Israel are impure, even those who are pure perform it in impurity.

But

if Israel were half pure and half impure,

the amoraim disagreed:

Rav said: Half is like a majority.

That is to say: The half of Israel who are pure are considered like a majority of the pure, and the half of Israel who are impure are considered like a majority of the impure, as will be explained.

And Rav Kahana said: Half is not like a majority,

as will be explained.

And we explain:

Rav said: Half is like a majority,

and therefore:

These

who are pure

perform it for themselves

in purity, and they are prohibited from performing it together with those who are impure in impurity; for we consider those who are pure like a majority, and we do not say that “a communal offering is not divided,” so as to cause the majority of Israel who are pure to follow those who are impure.

And these

who are impure

perform it for themselves

in impurity as the first Paschal offering, for we likewise consider those who are impure like a majority, and the majority of Israel are not deferred to the second Paschal offering; rather, they perform it in impurity.

And Rav Kahana said: Half is not like a majority,

and therefore:

Those who are pure perform the

Paschal offering

first, and those who are impure

perform the

Paschal offering

second,

since they are not like a majority of Israel, and they are deferred to the second Paschal offering.

There are those who say:

As for what

Rav Kahana said: Half is not like a majority,

this is what he means:

Those who are pure perform the

Paschal offering

first.